On 1/18/19 7:36 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 04:57:19AM +0100, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote: >> commit b804e8851c33b68caa5057e809a12333741dfe2e >> Author: Richard Kimberly Heck <rikih...@lyx.org> >> Date: Wed Jan 16 11:13:53 2019 -0500 >> >> Rename emergency file when it is kept. >> >> Otherwise, we will ask about it again next time, when the file >> may have changed. Also, if we crash again, we'll over-write that >> file, which we may not want to do. > Huh. I don't personally find this as an improvement.
Sorry, maybe I should have brought this to the list. It didn't occur to me that it might be controversial. > The previous code > forced you to do *something* about the situation when it's most due -- > until you deal with the emergency file properly, you will be asked. Not really. You can perfectly well leave the file sitting there. Then, as you say, you'll be asked about it again the next time, but only if you do not save the original file (so that it's modtime is later). But if you have another crash, then the emergency file will be over-written. We could try to rename it or something first, but presumably we need to do as little as possible when writing the emergency file. > Now you you just hit Keep and postpone/forget about that, which is way > more prone to dataloss than previous situation IMHO. I'm not sure I understand that worry. The file's there, right? > It's also change of the behaviour for the experienced users so if we > keep this commit we should at least notify about the changed workflow. > Perhaps "Keep and Rename" as the button. Let's resolve this first, and then I will change the button or message or something. > What I would find as a real improvement in the emergency case workflow > is to offer comparison of the emergency and stored file. > I found myself doing this manually bunch of times after emergency file > was created, so new button for that would be handy and not so much work > I believe. Sure, we could certainly do that. Personally, I have not found the comparison stuff very useful. It seems to proceed character by character, which can be lead to bizarre diffs. I've occasionally thought about converting it (or adding an option) so that it went word by word. That would be more informative, I think. Riki
